Validity VAL
Rank #1981Smart Contract PlatformProof of Stake (PoS)Made in USA
Mashbooh · Doubtful · Risky
Quick Answer

Is Validity halal?

Validity is classified as doubtful (mashbooh), with a Shariah compliance score of 56/100 under our 27-point screening methodology.

Overall56Mashbooh · Doubtful · Risky
Riba62.1Mashbooh
Gharar45.5Mashbooh
Maysir60Mashbooh
Full reportMethodology
5662.1RIBA45.5GHARAR60MAYSIR
Shariah screening · tap a sub-dial
Project diligence tap a tile →
Moderate RibaExcessive Gharar (High Uncertainty)Moderate Maysir (High Risk)

GhararSharia pillar · 45.5/100 · Review · 15 criteria

Mashbooh. Prohibition of contracts with excessive ambiguity or hidden risk.

Sign in free to see which criteria these scores belong to.

Team Transparency & Credibility25
Ethical Practices75
Transparency60
Governance30
Launch Fairness50
Token Distribution50
Speculation / Utility Ratio60
Financial Status50
Audit Quality10
Governance Rights30
Rewards Distribution50
Asset Backing60
Mechanism Type50
Documentation50
Shariah Alignment50
How VAL compares
Casper Network
83.8
Agoric
73.9
Orchid Protocol
68.4
★ Validity (VAL)
56
Onyxcoin
44.8

Compare directly: vs Agoric · vs Orchid Protocol · vs Onyxcoin

Purify your profits from VAL

A portion of profit from VAL isn't fully yours to keep — here's how to return it

What does "purification" mean?

Even fully screened assets can pick up small amounts of tainted income along the way — purification means giving that specific portion back, not paying extra.

Based on Validity's riba, gharar and maysir screening — see how we calculate purification amounts.

Overseen by Imam Omar Siddiqi, Shariah scholar and Imam of JMIC, among others, with donations paid directly to Jamiya Masjid & Islamic Centre — UK registered charity no. 1089986. Sent wallet-to-wallet; CryptoUmmah never custodies your funds. Always verify the destination address before confirming in your wallet.

Mashbooh · Doubtful · Risky

Your exact purification amount, calculated from Validity's Shariah compliance score.

$
Amount to return0.00 USDC

to Jamiya Masjid & Islamic Centre, a registered UK charity

Purification isn't Zakat and isn't tax-deductible — it's the return of income that wasn't rightfully yours.

Scholar-verified · UK registered charity
Key facts
Last reviewed
ThanvirWritten by ThanvirFounder, Ex Director S&P Global EnergyImam Omar SiddiqiReviewed by Imam Omar SiddiqiShariah Scholar
Analyst summary

Validity (VAL) traces to a whitepaper for "VALID," a self-sovereign identity and personal-data marketplace with token ticker VLD, run by a not-for-profit "VALID Foundation." No named founders, executives, or team credentials appear anywhere, and no independent security audit by any named firm could be located. Supply is capped near one billion tokens, but allocation and vesting details are undisclosed. The single biggest Shariah consideration is gharar: an anonymous team, mismatched ticker naming, and a total absence of audit or governance documentation create serious informational uncertainty that overshadows the otherwise legitimate, non-interest-bearing data-marketplace utility concept.

The research

27-point Shariah breakdown of VAL

Islamic Finance Principles Assessment

Riba — Does Validity involve interest?

Nothing in the available documentation describes interest-bearing accounts, lending pools, or fixed/variable yield promised to token holders. The model described is a fee-based data marketplace, not a credit facility. On the narrow question of riba, Validity's own design does not appear to embed interest, though the absence of detailed financial disclosure limits full confidence.

Assessment: Moderate Riba Score: 62.1/100

Our methodology examines 10 criteria to evaluate how well Validity avoids interest-based mechanisms.

The whitepaper describes a marketplace connecting "identity owners" and "data consumers," implying transaction-fee revenue rather than interest income. No numeric fee schedule, treasury composition, or reserve-asset breakdown is disclosed, so it cannot be confirmed whether any treasury holdings are placed in interest-bearing instruments. No mention of bond purchases, money-market deposits, or yield farming by the Foundation appears in the sources. Absent contrary evidence, the revenue model as described is fee-for-service rather than interest-based, though the lack of transparency prevents a fully confident conclusion.

The core business model is an identity/data marketplace, structurally distinct from lending or credit protocols. No lending, borrowing, collateralized debt, or interest-bearing partnership is described anywhere in the retrieved material. Unrelated DeFi lending platforms mentioned elsewhere in the broader source set, such as Aave or Orbit, have no bearing on this project and are not part of Validity's own design. Based solely on the documented function, buying and selling data access with a utility token, there is no riba-generating mechanism embedded in the protocol's stated purpose.

Gharar — How much uncertainty does Validity involve?

Validity carries substantial uncertainty stemming from documentation gaps rather than from any inherently deceptive mechanism. The stated utility concept is coherent, but the absence of named leadership, audit records, or clear tokenomics leaves investors with limited ability to verify claims. This level of informational opacity warrants real caution.

Assessment: Excessive Gharar (High Uncertainty) Score: 45.5/100

Our methodology examines 15 criteria including team transparency, audit quality, and governance.

No named founders, executives, or credentialed team members appear in any retrieved source; the project is instead attributed to an unnamed "VALID Foundation" structure. This anonymity, combined with a ticker mismatch between VAL and the whitepaper's VLD, makes independent verification difficult. Whether the codebase is open-source is asserted in the whitepaper but not independently confirmed through repository review. No biographical or track-record information exists for anyone associated with the project, leaving holders unable to assess execution capability or accountability.

No security audit by any named firm, Halborn, Trail of Bits, or otherwise, could be located for this project in the available sources; audits cited elsewhere belong to unrelated protocols like Ripple or Reef Finance. Supply figures are inconsistent (1,000,000,000 versus 500,000,000 cited in the same document), and allocation, vesting, and pre-mine structure are unexplained. This absence of independent audit and inconsistent disclosure is a genuine, plainly-stated gharar concern that should weigh heavily on any risk assessment.

Maysir — Does Validity involve gambling or speculation?

Validity is not designed as a gambling product; its stated purpose is a data-marketplace utility token, not a wagering or prize-based mechanism. Speculative trading can occur on secondary markets for almost any token, but that is a market behavior, not a feature of the coin's own design. The protocol itself shows no maysir-style structure.

Assessment: Moderate Maysir (High Risk) Score: 60/100

Our methodology examines 11 criteria to determine whether Validity is a gambling instrument or a genuine economic tool.

The whitepaper positions VAL/VLD as the settlement instrument within a peer-to-peer marketplace where identity owners are compensated for granting access to personal data, and data consumers pay for that access. This is a productive, service-based exchange model rather than a zero-sum wager. If implemented as described, such a use case reflects genuine economic activity, information exchange for value, distinguishing it functionally from lottery-style or purely speculative token designs that promise rewards detached from any underlying service.

No financial data on trading volume, market capitalization, or holder behavior for this specific coin was found in the sources, making it impossible to gauge how much current market activity is driven by speculation versus genuine marketplace use. As with most tokens, secondary-market speculation by third parties is possible, but this reflects trader behavior rather than the protocol's own design, and should not be conflated with the coin's intended function. On balance, the documented utility model is not maysir-based, even though real-world adoption evidence remains unverified.

The Full 27-Point Screening

1. Legitimacy (4 criteria)

CriterionScoreAnalysis
Team Transparency25/100The project is said to be run by a "VALID Foundation" rather than named, credentialed individuals, so accountability cannot be verified from the sources.
Fraud & Scam Risk50/100 (low evidence)No fraud, hack, or rug-pull reports specific to this coin were found, but no positive trust signals were found either, so risk cannot be assessed either way.
Use Case Legitimacy70/100The whitepaper clearly describes a real use case: a self-sovereign identity and personal-data marketplace connecting data owners and consumers.
Ethical Practices75/100The described design (identity/data marketplace) shows no inherent connection to a prohibited industry, though detail is limited to a brief whitepaper description.

Summary: The team behind this coin is not named or independently verifiable in the sources, which describe only a foundation-run structure with no reported fraud but also no confirmable trust signals.

2. Project Operations (9 criteria)

CriterionScoreAnalysis
Core Protocol Business75/100The base protocol is an identity/data management platform, not a prohibited sector, based on the limited whitepaper description available.
Transaction Fees50/100 (low evidence)No details on how transaction fees are handled (burned, retained, or distributed) were found in the sources.
Treasury Assets50/100 (low evidence)No information on treasury composition or whether it holds interest-bearing assets was found.
Revenue Model60/100The described model is marketplace-transaction fees rather than interest income, though no numeric detail is given.
Transparency60/100The whitepaper states the platform is intended to be open source, but no repository or audit of that claim is available.
Governance30/100Governance is described as resting with a central "Foundation" rather than a decentralised token-holder process.
Launch Fairness50/100 (low evidence)No information on launch fairness, pre-mine, or initial sale mechanics was found.
Token Distribution50/100 (low evidence)No breakdown of token distribution across team, investors, or community was found beyond total-supply figures.
Speculation/Utility Ratio60/100The token is described as serving a functional marketplace role rather than purely speculative purpose, though adoption data is absent.

Summary: The base protocol is described as an open, peer-to-peer identity and personal-data marketplace with a fixed token supply, though fee handling, treasury composition, and governance mechanics are largely undocumented in the sources.

3. Financial Health (4 criteria)

CriterionScoreAnalysis
Protocol Revenue65/100Revenue appears tied to marketplace transactions rather than interest, based on the limited whitepaper description.
Financial Status50/100 (low evidence)No market capitalisation, trading history, or financial stability data specific to this coin was found.
Interest Assessment75/100The protocol is described as a data/identity marketplace with no lending or borrowing feature mentioned.
Audit Quality10/100No named audit firm or audit report for this coin appears anywhere in the sources, despite audit reports being available in the source set for unrelated projects.

Summary: No audit, market-stability data, or protocol revenue detail specific to this coin could be found, and the base protocol shows no evidence of native lending or interest-based features.

4. Token Economics (5 criteria)

CriterionScoreAnalysis
Token Purpose70/100The whitepaper explicitly frames the token as a utility unit for marketplace transactions, not a meme token.
Governance Rights30/100 (low evidence)No holder governance/voting rights are described for the token in the sources.
Rewards DistributionN/ANo reward or yield-distribution mechanism for holding the token was found, so there is nothing to assess.
Speculation Controls65/100A fixed, capped total supply with no further issuance functions as a basic anti-inflation/anti-speculation feature.
Asset Backing60/100The token's value is tied to functional use within the described data marketplace rather than a disclosed reserve asset.

Summary: The token is presented as a marketplace utility instrument with a capped supply, but no governance rights or reward mechanics are disclosed in the available sources.

5. Staking Mechanism

Validity has no native staking mechanism, so these five criteria are not applicable and are excluded from the score entirely rather than counted as zeros.

Overall Assessment: Available sources support a plausible non-speculative utility concept for this coin, but the near-total absence of verifiable team, audit, governance, and financial information means most compliance determinations remain unestablished rather than confirmed.

Sources consulted